HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880405
,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 5, 1988
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Mari Peyton, Michael Herron,
Ramona Markalunas David White, Graeme Means and Welton Anderson.
RITZ-CARLTON ASPEN HOTEL GMP RESCORING
PUBLIC HEARING
LODGE GMP AMENDMENT
Welton opened the public hearing.
Alan Richman: I think the first thing we need to decide is how we
want to attack this tonight. Would you like to finish up the
housing discussion first?
Harvey: It don't make any difference to me.
Richman: Let's finish housing first.
The memo to you on housing follows the 2 comparative tables in your
packet for tonight. (attached in record) We are starting with
housing tonight. The Housing Authority met last Thursday and has
made a recommendation to you. I will summarize the recommendation
for you and then Jim Adamski wants to make some comments to you.
Several of the Housing Authority members are here tonight.
What the Housing Authority focused was trying to update the formula
for employee generation for the project which had been used in
processing the application. The reason that the applicant was
updating that formula was that the Authority had specifically asked
for that after receiving the original submission by the applicant
about a month and a half ago.
The formula was presented to you last week. You got the basic
information but we have updated it for you with current break down
in your packet. Basically it looks at the hotel in terms of its
components that might generate employees. Those being the number
of rooms in the facility, the amount of accessory food and beverage
in the facility, and the amount of accessory retail in the
facility.
The formula identifies certain factors for each component and those
factors were arrived at by Jim curtiss. He can explain to how we
originally arrived at those 4 or 5 years ago but those at .36
employees per room, 12.8 employees per 1,OOOsqft of food and
beverage and 3.5 employees per 1,OOOsqft of retail.
Using those factors you can identify the total employee generation
for the hotel which is about 269 people using those factors. The
one aspect of the hotel that makes it a little confusing to
PZM4.5.88
translate the number 269 into the applicant's actual employee
housing obligation however is that the hotel of course is made up
of both replacement rooms and new rooms as well as replacement
commercial square footage and new commercial square footage.
It has always been our practice in looking at other projects that
you credit the applicant for the right to rebuild existing space.
The real question to the Housing Authority under that is at what
rate should they credit the previously existing space. I will get
back to that in a second.
Once you do have those factors and you develop the 269 person total
generation you can look at the basic commitments that the applicant
made which is to house 60% of the hotel's employees and to house
42% of the residents in the residential projects and to replace any
previously demolished employee housing including that up at the old
Aspen Inn. And when you add all of those together you are going
to end up with 141.51 people.
Now as I say the confusion involved around how do you credit out
141.5 credited out at the same generation rate as the new units so
in other words if you took the units which had been demolished
essentially The Blue Spruce and the Aspen Inn as well as some units
that previously existed in the continental those are being credited
for employee generation at the same rate as the new Ritz-Carlton
was proposing that it was generating new employees. Obviously any
of us who know those old facilities know that those facilities were
not at the high service levels in the community. In fact, the Blue
Spruce was probably at the lowest service level in the community.
After quite a bit of discussion the Housing Authority ended up
crediting those old lodge units at the rate of .2 employees per
lodge room. In other words significantly below what the generation
is for the new lodge units.
The result of all of those formulas is that the housing obligation
for the project based on the Housing Authority's recommendations
is 164.1 people for this phase of development. There is also a
calculation done for the next phase of development--the
reconstruction of the Grande Aspen which adds nearly another 50
people to the formula for a total of 212.5.
I will mention that the Housing Authority did debate about just
looking at a hotel as how many employees are generated per room.
And you had some discussion of that kind of approach last week.
We presented some information to them. We being Jim Adamski and
I that the Ritz Carlton Hotel standard in other portions of the
country is about 2.0 to 2.1 employees per room which is obviously
much higher than what we are looking at here.
2
PZM4.5.88
The only other comment that I need to make is that based on the
obligation that the applicant for the PUD agreement they already
have provided housing for 158 employees between the Alpina Haus,
Copper Horse, The Hunter Longhouse cash payment. They are 6. 1
employees short of the Phase I and 108.4 employees short of Phase
II. Under the existing PUD agreement you have housing obligated
not only for Phase 1 of the project but right near Phase II and
the Planning Office not the Housing Authority but the Planning
Office is recommending to you that you need to have a housing
obligation. In other words you need to have a housing solution
for both Phase I and Phase II before this PUD agreement can be
finalized. That is something that I know the applicant has some
significant problem with.
Then there are some other conditions which we can discuss later
which are also listed in the memorandum which the applicant needs
to deal with.
Jim Adamski, Housing Authority: Alan covered everything I wanted
to say. I just want to highlight the issue of the Phase II was
not a discussion point in the Housing Authority's recommendation.
The figures were worked out so that we could have a tracking record
on file of how the past was done because it has been
incrementalized over about 5 years and it does get confusing. So
at this point we do have a tracking record for the Phase II.
The issue of--in calling to look for a standard which the 2.1
standard that has to be I think discussed a little further. And
that would have to be discussed by Ritz Carlton because I--
subsequent to that those discussions we had some conversation with
them--very confidential on their operations and I understand a
little bit more about how those numbers become generated. But what
is surprising is that when we get to the numbers if we work in the
back door until we find that we have with this application
approximately 265-275 employees. We have seen spread sheets from
other hotels and it seems to be somewhat consistent.
There may be in my opinion there may be 20 short or maybe some long
but at this point we are not going to be able I don't think to pin
point. The Housing Authority realized that and put in a condition
in our recommendation to you that after 2 years of operation that
there would be an audit of the operation. This would be by an
independent auditor mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the
Housing Authority paid by the applicant and if there existed a
shortfall they would make that up. If there existed a credit they
wouldn't get anything back. But they would be able to use that on
subsequent projects or sell them to other applicants.
So again we know that the formula may not be totally accurate. And
time will tell but we did leave that statement.
3
PZM4.5.88
John Sarpa: If I could--to begin with a few quick comments and
then we will try to respond specifically to it. Thus far we felt
both during this phase and housing discussions for housing and the
architecture of it. We have had a high degree of co-operation and
interaction. We have had an awful lot of changes made to our
programs thanks to Jim and his Boards. A good input and
understanding as well as Alan and his staff.
We felt that we have been proceeding quite well. Needless to say
when we came here today we have had some mixed signals which gives
us cause for concern. I guess that is a part of--a normal part of
the process but to date we really have been functioning on a
reliance that just our reading of what we have heard from you all
at least thus far is that most of you have felt that what we have
been working on these last few weeks is a substantial improvement
to the old approval.
concerning the litigation with Mr. Trump. There has been some
reports that we are to have discussions with Trump to sell pieces
of land and that that would affect the PUD and all of this kind of
observations. I can represent to you--I can even give it to you
in letter form if you would like that we are not in discussions
with Mr. Trump along those lines and it is pertinent of course
because that would have some potential--if nothing else
psychological. I want to put that to rest. We are not.
The other thing I think is pertinent that has been raised is the
financing of this. And that is a little astray in discussing
housing but then again it is not. It has been represented that we
can or cannot finance. We are not financing. We are in, as you
may know, extensive negotiations through the Morgan stanley
Investment Bank in New York. We have firm offers that we are
looking both in terms of the debt and equity mix of the $80,000,000
project. We have specific proposals in hand and we are frankly
picking through them to design what we feel is the best financing.
The reason I raise that is that it is important for you to realize
that we are very much prepared to proceed with this project. There
is money. We are having a contractor on hand or whatever it is.
It is just that the real situation that we are prepared to move
ahead at whatever the pace that the City is comfortable with. If
it is quick, we are ready to do quick. That then affects the last
thing.
We mentioned a couple of weeks ago there is of course a timing
problem here and that relates to April 15th. Part of our strain
on working out good solutions to the housing problem or design
problem is this time constraint that we have had. We were informed
4
PZM4.5.88
by the City officials that is we were to be able to pull the old
permit on the old building--the old Tweed design we had to submit
by yesterday.
We waited until the last possible moment to do so. But we did
submit yesterday. We took the old plans exactly as they were and
we submitted those. Again, it is not anything more than our
interest in preserving our existing rights on that property. I
will end with saying that I hope that as we move through this
process and if you feel that it is productive and we are refining
it that you can send a clear message to the City Council and when
we finish our deliberations with you that we are making progress
and the additional time is appropriate.
Harvey: When we submitted we had a staffing guide for the food
and beverage from Ritz Carlton. This kept getting postponed. The
Housing Authority said or the Board said "Use the old guidelines-
-the old formulas exactly as they were" which Alan went over. We
did that. We went back to the Board with that on Thursday and they
came up with a new set of rules and guidelines and formulas as Alan
outlined in reference to the reconstruction units. That's come up
with a different new result which added in Phase I as Alan said
some 23 employees and in Phase II added some 28.4 employees.
To give you an idea of the magnitude of that if we were to do that
in cash-in-lieu just for the moderate guidelines it is $660,000.
They also asked that we guarantee the indoor dining seats and the
net dining square footage. We don't have a problem with that as
long as Planning & Zoning and everyone understands that those are
our restaurant seats and in the summer time there will be outdoor
dining that would be in excess of that.
The question of--so we are in agreement with this. We feel that
while it was somewhat confusing how we got to this point that we
are OK. I would draw your attention on the chart to the Phase II
and item 1--Lodge operation total bedrooms. It has an asterisk by
it and that asterisk reflects to a note on page 2 which says that
this is a unit count or approved PUD the maximum number of units
which can be rebuilt in Phase II under the amendment is 155. So
I want to make sure that this memo and this formula is in there and
not the actual numbers because we can only do 155 rooms in terms
of PUD approval.
Richman: We should make this an exhibit to the agreement.
Harvey: Yeah.
5
PZM4.5.88
Richman: We did that quite frequently in the previous agreement
to reference documents that were more significant than just the
bottom line number. That is a good point.
Harvey: If you take 275 employees which is what our generations
are and you take 60% of that, it is 165 employees. So when we come
in after all of our credits and plan around with all the map we are
at 164. So some people have said "God it just--these credits,
these people are gone. They are not working there any more". But
the formula reflects the credits that if you just take it on
straight 60% comes up at basically the same number.
Regarding the Phase II, Alan has asked that we have all the
necessary land use approvals in place. And as we have said to you
what happens on the Lot 5 of the PUD is quite a way down the road-
-4 or 5 years down the road.
The Housing Board did not come up with this. Alan
because it was the way prior PUD was set up.
anticipated Phase II construction much faster.
recommended this
The prior PUD
I would like to propose that we will have all the land use
approvals in place for a project or projects for Phase II
requirement at the time we go for a building permit. As you know
there is a requirement in the code when you provide housing that
it has to be done in order for you to get a certificate of
occupancy. You can go ahead and build your project but when you
go to get a CO they won't give it to you unless you have got the
housing.
I am moving that time frame up to say that we would have--we want
to have the housing available but we would have everything in place
for a specific project at the time we went for a building permit
which if there were any amendment would mean you guys would review
it along with the amendment. If there is no amendment it is
something that has to be supplied when we go for a building permit.
And I think that is much more fair because for us to go out and
acquire ak piece of land and go through the Land Use approvals for
a project that may be 4 or 5 years down the road--it is just a
question of timing. So I would throw that out as an alternative.
I talked to Alan about it but he had to think it over.
I would also like to discuss--in order that we not get into a
situation where we end up having to supply housing for 2.2 people
or we end up having to go buy a single family lot which is pretty
prohibitive I would like he Commission to consider-we will commit
to house a minimum of 80% of our employees in new construction.
And I would like the latitude on 20% for cash-in-lieu so that these
fractions can get dealt with. And I think 20% but if we get a
project and we are building away and we have got 3 people left over
6
PZM4.5.88
from that project and we can't do it cash-in-lieu for that
incremental portion we are sitting here looking at literally having
to build a 3 bedroom house because we are not accepting the option
of conversions existing units which would allow you to go out and
buy a 3 bedroom condominium or something and deed restrict.
So I would like the Commission to consider that split and have that
commitment to a minimum of 80% of employees generated to be housed
in new construction.
Welton: What do you mean by new construction?
Harvey: Well, we would have to supply housing. In other words we
wouldn't have the option for conversion of existing units and we
wouldn't have the option of cash-in-lieu. We would have to go out
and build.
Welton: For the extra 40 or 54?
Harvey: Well, for 80% of the requirements.
Sarpa: We are trying to make a commitment that we are going to
build something instead of just going the cash-in-lieu route. That
is what we would really like to do.
Harvey: But I am also trying to keep it so that I don't get stuck
with 2.1 employees and trying to go out and--
Peyton: What about that incremental figure being conversion?
Harvey: I don't know. I don't know how you guys feel about it.
I kind of feel that if you had to rank the 3 options that are
available to the Housing Authority I would rank them as
construction, cash-in-lieu and conversion because when you convert
all you are doing is reducing an inventory and it is putting
pressure on everything else. Cash-in-lieu although it is--we
haven't seen and results yet that at least creates an option for
production of new housing so that is why I come up with this.
David White: So you are saying that 475 is what it says on your
generation and you are going to house 60% of that. That means 165
employees. Of that 80% is going to be new construction.
Harvey: No. We have Alpina Haus and the Copper Horse and we have
the Hunter Longhouse. We have our credits. I am talking about
what we need to house over and above that. We are going to do 80%
of those in new construction.
White: Hunter Longhouse is how many units?
7
PZM4.5.88
Joe Wells: Hunter Longhouse is 69 credits.
Harvey: copper Horse is 46.
Wells: copper Horse is 43. Alpina Haus is 46.
Jasmine: So the option of conversion is something that you are
not necessarily averse to or---we talking about it earlier
situation and Mari was talking about one of the problems about
employee housing the idea that you always may necessarily have to
out and take up what we thought of at some point as open space to
build your employee housing and that there are perhaps other
options such as taking the cash-in-lieu and using it to buy a
property that is already developed in some for and maybe developing
to employee housing. It seems to make sense if those properties
are available and I didn' t--j ust wanted to know whether this
preclusion of conversion was something that you wanted or that the
Housing Authority wanted or--because if it is something that nobody
wants I don't see why we shouldn't rule it out.
Harvey: Well, you shouldn't necessarily.
Adamski: I want to point out that conversion in many cases are
converting of properties that we have already been using.
Jasmine: I understand that.
Adamski: And that is dissipate so the Housing Authority in
discussion with the Boards here--our priorities new units built by
the developer is not cash-in-lieu to get land to leverage units.
Conversion again I believe would be number 3 on the list. They
have already got a number of conversions if you will from existing
units. Now this whole 80% idea has been brought up. I am as the
director am in support of it. I don't know about my Board but I
would be in support of that and the cash-in-lieu seems reasonable.
White: Let me go back to numbers again. 165 employees generated
you are gong to house. You have already got credits for 158. We
are talking about 7 units.
Harvey: We are talking about 54 units for Phase I and II.
White: People.
Harvey: People.
White:
already
already
So you are going to house 6 people more than
got right now. You already have got Alpina Haus.
got Copper Horse, Hunter Longhouse.
you have
You have
8
PZM4.5.88
Harvey: Yes. You have to keep in mind that that property would
have been thrown on the free market.
White: Yea. You worked out a deal with City Council on that then.
So we are talking about 7 units. Why not just build 7 units? We
are talking about 7 units.
Markalunas: People.
White: Excuse me. 6.1 people.
Harvey: So 6.1 people. How do I house 1/10th of a person?
Someone suggested "with a dog house".
Harvey: So round it off to 6 and that will do it?
Adamski: Yes.
Harvey: Isn't it rounded off anyway?
Adamski: No.
Harvey: If it is not. If it is cash-in-lieu. How do I house a
tenth of a person?
._""'
Richman: Cash-in-lieu. That is one of the reasons for cash-in-
lieu.
Harvey:
We will
Sarpa:
Exactly. That enables you to have more accurate fraction.
build 6. Or we will go through a conversion.
We will either convert or build 6.
Richman: The question is where?
Harvey: Well, this is it. If we are going to do a project then
you go out and you can get X amount of property and you can do a
project. When you are looking at 6 people that is 2 3-bedroom
units. Now I can't do that without paying 400 grand for the--well
actually it would probably cost closer to 700 grand for the piece
of property in this instance.
We may be able to combine that. We may be able to work that out.
I am just trying to leave the options open. Jim Adamski had a
suggestion about that 6 that we do a letter of credit for like 10
people more than the 6 that we would post at time of building
permit that would give us 6 months because the Phase I project is
almost 18 months construction project. Give us 6 months to come
up with construction solution for those 6 people or we would
9
PZM4.5.88
forfeit what would essentially be cash-in-lieu for almost twice
that.
And we are willing to do that kind of thing because then illness
is on us and the motivation is there to go out and do the housing.
White: Looking at it a little bit more I like the concept. What
do you do for Phase II also? I like the concept. 80% of the
people generated after what you have got. Build new, that is good.
Richman: I am not aware of any other subdivision or PUD or any
other final approval that have been granted without having the
employee housing solution in place. If you are happy with cash
that is what they are saying that they will give you in the hope
that they can come up with the production solution thing. other
precedence are that the solution is there and I am not anxious to
have to talk to the next developer who comes in and says "Well,
you let them come in and say don't worry, we will provide the
production at some point".
This is the biggest project in the community and in order to set
the example by negating all of those requirements that we have net
before.
Welton: Are you talking the other 48 units for Phase II.
Richman: Well, right now we are talking about the 7. That is part
of the Phase I that they are attempting to get a building permit
for in the near future. And the point is we need the housing
solution for that portion of the portion of the project.
Harvey: Under the current code and I realize the code is being-
-is in the process of change in order to allow P&Z and Council the
right to designate the form under which that housing is supplied.
Nonetheless, under your current code which we are sitting here
before you with-under the law, the developer has the right to
choose one of three options to provide the employee housing--
conversion, production or cash-in-lieu. All of those under your
current code are considered equally good. And I understand that
you guys have a problem with that and I think the community has a
problem with that .
Therefore, we have said that we will go out and we will overcommit
on this so that there is a real motivation for us to produce the
housing. We are saying we will go and produce the housing.
Correct me if I am wrong but under the current code under the laws
that exist cash-in-lieu is has to be acceptable to this Board.
10
PZM4.5.88
Now you guys don't like it.
here saying that we will go
mean, Alan, that is the way
It is being changed. We
along with what will be.
it exists.
ar sitting
OK? But I
Richman: There was a PUD agreement in place. A PUD agreement
provides for a certain housing solution which the applicant is
requesting to amend just like every other aspect of the PUD. If
you find the solution preferable to the solution in place, you
should support it. If you find the solution not acceptable, then
you should stick with he kind of solution which is for production
of their remaining employee housing units. It is like every other
aspect of the PUD agreement that we have put before you. This is
something the applicant is asking to change the way the housing is
being provided. The current agreement says ute City Place-is the
way the additional 37 employees that they have required for the
project were to be provided. That is a Phase I and Phase II.
The current PUD agreement doubled both Phases I and II even thought
the PUD agreement recognized that the continental was to remain in
place for 5 years. No different than the situation that they are
proposing at the Grande Aspen. My proposal is to treat the project
the same as it was treated in the PUD agreement. Deal with Phase
I and Phase II and know what the production solution is. I am
trying to be consistent.
Hunt: Well, what would satisfy me and I don't know whether it is
the rest of the Board but I will put this out. For the progress
of this proposal or amendment that at this time we will accept
cash-in-lieu for 10 people. However that can also be satisfied in
the future by actual production other than the number of units
required for the satisfaction of production of the actual units
that will be required. What is that? 7?
Harvey: 6.1.
Hunt: OK. that can be satisfied by 6 plus the remainder cash-in-
lieu.
Peyton: What do you mean? Give the money back if they wind up
building it? Or what?
Jasmine: Sure.
Hunt: But at this point cash-in-lieu for 10 people.
White: Cash-in-lieu seems to be something we don't want. I don't
know why we are accepting this. Here all of a sudden we are
getting something offered on something built and we are saying "No"
so something built and we are saying "Hooray to cash-in-lieu" which
is much less money.
11
PZM4.5.88
Somewhere along in my mind I know I have got problems with numbers
but this one is easily ridiculous.
Harvey: We will commit to produce the housing. The issue is when
we have to have that solution in place.
Welton: Alan, it looks like we are bogged down with the fact that
they don't have this one small component-6 persons being housed
because they don't have a piece of property and--
Harvey:
actually
it out.
Actually you see we didn't know until Thursday night--
it was Friday--actually this morning we finally figured
Sarpa:
What the number is.
Herron: What if we made their commitment the condition of their
getting a CO?
Colombo: It is anyway.
Herron: Well then what is the problem?
Richman: As of Thursday night there was a statement made at the
Housing Authority meeting-=-now maybe it is no longer true but on
Thursday night we were told that the ute city Place project was on
the contract to this applicant. And that is the production that
we all thought was so important back in the original review of the
PUD agreement we felt that it was close to the Lodge District. It
was within walking distance of the jobs. It was the most desirable
housing being provided for this project. And I am not understand
why it is impossible to commit to that project.
Harvey: ute city Place is currently under contract because it was
a requirement under the old PUD for us to pull a permit. And it
was necessary for us to do it in order to vest our rights on April
15th if we don't have an extension. Number one.
ute city Place is to house 37 people?
Richman:
Yes.
Harvey:
to build
cost per
of this.
And cost us some 3/4 of a million dollars. And if we were
that for 6 people, I would hate to figure out what the
employee was. There is a better solution for the needs
12
PZM4.5.88
peyton: You could build the rest of it and sell it to the city.
If you can build 300 hotel units, I don't know why you couldn't
build 37 employee units.
Harvey: We can build it. We are just looking for a different
solution. We want to consider our options. If we come up with
something comparable-I mean we have got the Barbee Mine Dump
property. We have looked at a portion of that. That is 3 blocks
from the hotel. It is closer than ute city Place. ute City Place
has some parking problems. I mean it is--
Peyton: I thought you were having trouble disposing of any extra
units that were built.
Ritchie Cohen: Excuse me. I seem to be that only person who
remembers what happened the last time we did this. But unless you
have radically changed the code and the requirements at the time
of the first submission, all you had to do to satisfy that housing
requirement was to have an agreement to negotiate with the various
elements of this housing problem.
Now ute City Place had been put under contract because that was
something that needed to be designed and planned. And the whole
rest of this project was approved-Phase I and Phase lIon the basis
of several letters of intent to negotiate. They weren't even under
contract.
Now you seem to be changing this and bogging this whole thing down
for a problem that is in hand because if they are negotiating on
ute city Place and don't build it, they still have the option to
go on with something else as long as they provide X number of units
for X number of employees at the time of the granting of the co.
Adamski: I don't want to this entirely on the 6.1 but if
they give us a letter of credit with a certain period of time--
say 90 day letter of credit and they don't produce they lose
somewhere figure on the low income-$180,000. I mean that is pretty
good. What I was trying to do is try to get into a negotiating
position with you so that I could get these 6 on new construction
because I know where you all are coming from as far as payment in
lieu.
These people will lose the money. Now if they produce it--I mean
if they drop it--they don't get credit for those 4. They don't'.
There is nothing in there that gives them credit. They get credit
for 6 at the payment of 10. Now what I am trying to do is to deal
with a very small element here of this whole application. And I
think that if I can get some negotiating power in working with
these gentlemen that we can put together and work up some other
projects in the future to get that new construction that you want.
13
PZM4.5.88
We have some money. They have some obligations if we do this in
a co-operative method.
Now I don't think they are going to throwaway that $180,000. I
really don't believe that. That is a pretty good penalty. Now
that is a new idea. I understand that is new and I can understand
that there is consistency that you wanted to talk about but at this
point I didn't think that that this was a huge hurdle to overcome.
Welton: I hate to get us bogged down. In trying to plan for
something for this piece of property or that piece of property with
1 day's or 3 day's notice on your part.
Harvey: We will do it by a CO. And we will produce it.
Welton: And I am willing to let you commit to changing building
permit or co so that we can get moving.
Peyton: I would like to know what the figure is on the cash-in-
lieu.
Adamski: We just changed it. So $25,000 for low income.
Harvey: We agreed to $170,000 on the same basis of the prior
approval.
Richman: Just to be clear. I am not trying to create a problem
here. I am trying to get something specific so that when it goes
on the PUD agreement it is something that we can enforce. Reading
from the current code it says "Applicants proposing to provide
employee housing on an alternative site shall be required to
demonstrate the feasibility of their proposal to having an interest
in the property and/or units and by specifying the size and types
of units to be provided".
If we are going to look at production that is what the code
requires. If they can't provide that you ought to require them to
do it through cash. It has got to be one or the other. Jim has
come up with a reasonable approach to the cash side of it but don't
put us in the position of they are going to produce some units but
we don't know what they are. We don't know where they are and we
don't have anything to compare them to.
If you recall that is the situation that we got put into on the
601 Aspen project that caused this code amendment before. We had
a proj ect that they said "Don't worry. We are going to buy
something somewhere that is going to look like something". But we
didn't know what that was. commit them to cash. That is fine.
If that is what you want that is fine. commit them to something
specific, please.
14
PZM4.5.88
Welton: I like the aspect of them committing to the cash for 10
and going back and producing 6 instead and getting their money
back.
White: They have the option on the ute city Place under the old
agreement which they want to stick to and they said there is not
major changes. They are required to build ute City Place. I
cannot believe.
Welton: That is for Phases I and II.
White: I cannot believe that we are 1 going to accept an employee
generation of 165 employees and number 2 we are going to let them
pay cash-in-lieu instead of building ute City Place which they are
right now have money committed to buy. I think that the employee
generation is far below what in actuality will generate and I am
willing to go into the numbers on that a little bit by from my
experience and I think that 37 units to produce with this community
to employee housing to build 290 room hotel with all the things is
very small and they should commit to that. I wish my fellow P&Z
members would agree to that.
Peyton: I agree.
White: We have yet for the P&Z to accept the number of the
employee generation is that number. We don't know how many. What
we are talking about is 6 units because they already have got to
one number. Maybe we should talk about the employee number before
you get back to the 6 units that they are going to build. Or
accept the 80% of new and 20% in employee housing and then we will
fight about the number of employee generations. But somewhere we
have got to get employee generations before say 6 units is all they
have to build to build this hotel.
Harvey: David, please don't forget they 160 people that we are
committing to house. Don't forget the over million and a half
dollars that has been spent. You are sitting here and focusing on
6 people. You are focusing on the fact that you just out of hand
don't believe the Ritz Carlton can run a hotel.
White: Absolutely right. Absolutely right.
Harvey: Tell me what I can show you to convince you of what it is
going to take to construct these people.
White: John said you would have the numbers for this meeting. I
have the numbers off of 3 restaurants. I worked at the Aria
before. I have worked at restaurants. I know how much they
generate. I have only worked in the evening. I have worked at
15
PZM4.5.88
Patti Bogatti' s. They also have a downstairs kitchen. I know what
working at night and also working in the morning. I know how many
employees are required. And this is unbelievable for me to sit
here and say I will agree as an employee.
Harvey: OK. Well so let us talk about some hotel comparables.
I want you guys to have a comfort factor that we are not sitting
here trying to rip this commission off.
White: My comfort factor does not get anywhere near this. It is
way up here and you are way down here.
Harvey: Because you have got something in your head and you are
not coming at this with an open mind. You are coming at this with
a feeling that this is--
Welton: Before we rewrite the code on the spot or recalculate the
whole technology of those numbers, I have a suggestion from the
other end of the table to have a straw poll to accept or reject
your proposal.
All those in favor of accepting the proposal that is on the tabled-
Hunt: Is it my proposal which was more or less their proposal or-
Harvey: Roger wanted to accept the cash-in-lieu based on 10 people
wi th a time frame for the production of the 6.1 and that was
basically.
Hunt: OK. For the purposes of this proposal we would accept the
cash-in-lieu for 10 people.
Richman: Accepting 164.1 and then the 10.
Herron: That's the number of the Housing Authority, right?
Harvey: Right.
Herron: So we are accepting what the Housing Authority has told
us to accept.
Hunt: For Phase I of this project we are accepting cash-in-lieu
for 10 people. Now that may be satisfied in the future and there
should be a time frame set up but I don't know the time frame.
Let's say a 6 month time frame.
.r'
Richman: 6 months from the approval of the final PUD reviews.
16
PZM4.5.88
Hunt: Yes. That may be satisfied by an approved plan to produce
housing for 6 people.
Welton: OK. I would take that for straw vote. Those ink favor
of Roger's proposal. one, two, three, four, five.
Jasmine: I guess what I don't really understand is the bringing
up the Phase I and Phase II construction or provision of employee
housing and how that came about. The original--
Richman: Phase II is the re-development of the Aspen Grande.
there has been a Phase I to Phase II since the preliminary
review for the hotel. It may have come a little later than
but it has been a factor of this for a very, very long time.
before the PUD agreement was actually finalized.
And
plan
that
Well
Jasmine: But doesn't the PUD agreement--int he original PUD
agreement wasn't the employee housing for both Phase I and Phase
II to be undertaken at the same time?
Richman: No. We were actually were able to allocate the employee
projects to the specific both lodge and residential projects. In
other words it is a X amount of employee housing is due for 700
South Galena. Y is due for ute Place. Z is due for the re-
construction of the Aspen Grande etc etc so we parceled it out very
specifically. So we are being very specific.
Colombo: I think that a formal motion is due.
Welton: Do you want to put that in the form of a motion?
MOTION
Hunt: OK. I will move to accept the applicant's plan for cash-
in-lieu of 10 employees for the purposes of moving this plan
forward. and that shall be for what a period of 6 months to allow
them time to come up with a plan to produce housing for 6 actual
employees. The.1 remaining can still be satisfied by cash-in-
lieu.
Jasmine: Were you gong to include the conditions also in the
Housing Authority? About the commitment regarding what the number
of employees there might really be?
Hunt: I will include that in my motion.
Dunaway: Cash-in-lieu for what income level?
Harvey: Same mix as --
Hunt: I will refer that to Jim Adamski to--
17
PZM4.5.88
Adamski: A mix of the low and moderate and I don't have that mix
at this point. It would be the same ratio point as the previous
one.
Hunt: We will keep it in the sam proportion.
Colombo: Should just make it 6 months from the PUD approval though
in case this process takes longer than you think.
Richman: 6 months from the final PUD approval.
Peyton: Second.
White: I will get to the employee generation for a little while
because I know some people are bored with it. 292 rooms with an
employee generation of 1 per room would be 292 employees. 60%
would be about 180. I we take 1 and 1/2 we might be talking
employee generation of 270. If we talk 2 employees per hotel room
which some people in the community and other hotels have said they
use that it is 350 people we are generating at the 60% that they
are going to house it looks to me as if we are housing anywhere
from maybe 40% of what we should be.
I went on Thursday to the Housing Authority meeting and I was very
disturbed to find out that the some of the members of the Housing
Authority don't have as keen an awareness of the housing problem
that some of the people on the P&Z.
Adamski: There is a difference of opinion, David.
White: I think as a community we have all said development has to
pay its way. And development is not paying its way in this one.
I think I am going to lose it anyway but I have to say it. It is
not paying it anywhere near the level that it has got to pay it and
if it doesn't, people are going to really be hurt in this community
are the people who live here year round--not the developers, not
the guests--except they won't get the service they need. But we
are going to be the ones because next none of you employees out in
the community will be able to house anybody because they will all
be taken up by somebody else.
Jasmine: I have to say that I really do agree with David but we
have gone through this before with the residential applications
where the developers who are putting up million and a half dollar
homes in locations that could have been used for employee housing
were allowed to pay cash-in-lieu which makes me very hard-pressed
to rule against cash-in-lieu for this application even though it
is an amendment. It has become obvious to the members of the
Commission that development has not been paying its own way and we
18
PZM4.5.88
are hoping that in our code revisions that is going to be changed.
Unfortunately rules are what the rules are as they currently stand
and I think that the one reason that makes me think this might work
is the applicant is agreeing to commit to an audit after 2 years
that that might give us the kind of information that we really need
as to how many employees they have. It seems to me that this could
be valuable information for the community in terms of our future
planning because I think our employee estimates all along have been
too low and the amount that we have expected developers to come up
with in terms of mitigation is much too low. But those are the
rules that we have in effect right now. I can only hope that they
will improve in the future.
Hunt: The only thing I wanted to clarify was David's number. I
agree with him. We have a problem. But in the numbers that you
just put out, David, you didn't give them credit for the units that
were--the employees that were generated prior to this development-
-not the units but you didn't give them credit for the employee
count and we can't make them build a house retroactive so that is
where your figures are tending be a little out of proportion. It
is blowing out of proportion the problem at hand here. It is not
blowing out of proportion our total problem.
peyton: The applicants have had lots of variations because of the
PUD. They have had variations in heights, density, FAR, and when
it comes to those variations they say that the PUD allows for
changes and whatever the basic codes and regulations are because
it is a special project. But when it comes to housing employees
they want to hide behind the rule book and the code and everyone
else has to abide by. The people that go by those codes and those
rules have to stick to the height limits too. They have to stick
to a lot of things that this project has gotten concessions for.
They have to stick to parking requirements. And it seems to me as
long as we are in the PUD situation we should recognize that this
project has an approval which is based on agreements not
necessarily the code. Agreements between the City and the
applicants and a lot of rules have been bent. And there have been
changes in the community since the approvals were granted and I
think with the applicant coming in to ask for changes not because
of changes to the community but changes in ownership and changes
to their own situation that I think that we would be, as
commissioners, derelict in our responsibility if we don't take into
account the changes in the community, allow us to ask for
concessions from them too. And if you don't think that there is
a more of a crises on employee housing now than there was 4 years
ago I don't know where you have been. And I am just not happy with
approving this without their taking care of all of their impacts
not just a percentage.
19
PZM4.5.88
Welton: Alan, am I incorrect in my recollection that PUD doesn't
deal with employee housing at all--that that is a GMP question?
Richman: The GMP is the basic place that we get at at the point
of development regulations dealing with all aspect of the project.
They don't really focus on employee housing. They focus more on
generically on impacts the project might have in terms of traffic,
drainage-those kinds of things. Employee housing criteria are
pertaining---
Welton: Employee housing generation is not even mentioned in the
PUD.
Richman: f We have concentrated it in the GMP section.
Jasmine In the recommendations-in the recommended conditions you
know the thing I am interested in obviously is the audit of the
employees after 2 years. If it turns out that the applicant
underestimated the number of employees needed and there is in fact
a shortfall, what do we do? And what are our enforcement
mechanisms if in fact there is a shortfall? Suppose David's
numbers are correct and after 2 years we find out that--
Adamski: What hammer do we have over them in other words to reduce
or
Jasmine: Yes. Or to rectify the problem.
Adamski: That hammer is going to have to be written into the
agreement and it has got to need the assistance of some attorneys
on that. And I am not going to be able to totally answer that
question to your satisfaction. It will be negotiated to our
concept but I assure you they will have to produce. It will be
written in a way that they will have to produce them immediately
or I would imagine a dollar amount.
Harvey: It will have to be a reasonable amount of time to produce.
Jasmine: No. I mean because I think these conditions are of value
only if they were going to do an audit.
Harvey: If it is enforcement you are absolutely right.
Jasmine: I mean I think in order for this to work you have to have
a specific provision for enforcement. Otherwise it is meaningless.
Richman:
answer.
into the
The point is well
But your are right.
agreement.
taken. I don't think we have the
We are going to have to write that
20
PZM4.5.88
Jasmine: Well, I would like to have that included in the motion
somewhere.
Doug Allan, attorney for Housing Authority:
in the PUD agreement. It requires them to
number of months after the audit.
That can be addressed
produce the housing X
Welton: Would you amend your motion to include an enforcement
provision for the PUD agreement.
Hunt amended his motion and Mari amended her second.
Peyton: The audit. I would like to know who is going to do the
audit.
Adamski: The applicant will pay for the audit which they agreed
to. And there will be an auditor mutually agreed to.
John Walla: Why is it 2 years in the audit and not 1. What is
the matter with 1 full season?
Harvey: We discussed the 2 year proposal but 1 year it was assumed
that it was only fair to do it on a stabilized operation to give
the community the correct number. 2 years is a stabilized
operation.
?: And on the flip side the occupancy the first year is lower.
I think you could live with the first year if you wanted it. But
I think it is in the favor of the community to wait until we get
the occupancy up.
Walla: My problem is right now even without this hotel we are in
a huge crunch for employee housing. Everybody seems to know that.
The other problem comes in with the cash in lieu and the
conversion. It seems like the conversion seems to have different
definitions. When I first heard of conversions I mistakenly
assumed that converting housing that was maybe used for something
else besides employees and the huge number of this seems to be
coming from areas that currently are housing employees and I think
that this Board should do everything you can to emphasize,
encourage and work with these guys to work toward production and
virtually nothing else. Cash in lieu has had a lot of problems
too. No offense to Jim Adamski and the Housing Board. They can't
get off of square 1. Seems like they have cash in the bank and
they can't get it going.
Shortfalls are really horrendous and this project is going to be
taking employees away from the rest of the community when this
hotel opens up. And it is running at a lower than 100% of what is
eventually will stabilize that.
21
PZM4.5.88
steve Crockett: I have heard a couple of things here. One, I
still don't feel comfortable with or I didn't really hear you sort
of validate that total employee housing number that maybe Dwight
was referring to. And I think you may be basing deviation from the
code and precedent setting on a number that in my mind is not very
clear yet. I think if you are going to talk about 6.1 on this or
that I think you really need to validate that original number.
with respect to cash in lieu and so on and so forth all you are
really doing there is postponing the whole process. And for the
20 years that I have been here we are not wallowing in the fact
that we have been postponing dealing with employee housing among
other things. I don't know where this 10 employees cash in lieu
for 6 you know that you will have came up from. And I really
wonder about the precedent setting you know implications of that.
Where did this come from and how can you buy this out and is it OK
for this project and so on and so forth. I think you really need
to focus on addressing the problems that we have right now, now-
-not postponing them because we are already up to our ears in these
things.
Welton: We have a motion on the floor. It has been on the floor
for a long time.
Roll call vote:
The motion was to accept the difference between the number of
employees they have housing for and the number the calculations
have shown a need as 6.1. We will accept cash in lieu for 10
instead of the 6.1 and that they will come up with a plan within
6 months of the final PUD adoption for housing in production form
for that 6.0 with the .1 being handled by cash in lieu.
Dunaway: I thought the motion was to come up with housing.
Welton: No. Within 6 months, come up with a housing plan--
Markalunas: Actual production of 6 units.
Dunaway: Housing plan or housing production?
Someone said plan. Someone else said production.
Colombo: For production.
Richman: For production.
22
PZM4.5.88
Welton: In addition to that there are square footage limitations
put on the number of dining seats--the square footage of the dining
areas.
Richman: Yea. The same thing has been done
give you those numbers if it will help you.
seats and 3,700sqft of lounge area.
for lounge and I can
There are 240 lounge
Welton Along with an audit that is to be performed in 2 years
after full operation by an independent auditor to verify the
calculations have been met and an enforcement mechanism be written
into the PUD agreement.
David White, no,
Markalunas, yes,
Anderson, yes.
Jim
Mari
Colombo,
Peyton,
yes, Roger
no, Jasmine
Hunt, yes,
Tygre, no ,
Ramona
Welton
Motion carries 4 to 3.
RITZ-CARLTON ASPEN HOTEL
RESIDENTIAL GMP AMENDMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
Richman: The residential is taken care of.
Welton: We are now going to go through the GMP.
Richman: Just a point of clarification. How would you like this
to be handled?
Harvey: At the last meeting there was architectural issues that
maybe the scoring--
Welton: I think what Parry is saying he can resynopsize the
presentation that they did last week-get a more well thought out
response from us.
Harvey: You said you didn't have any comments because you had
seen it and so we were deferring that along with the housing.
I think that that might be something that we should do.
just
And
Richman: We have gone through each and every issue that is a
component of the GMP rescoring. I can summarize very briefly what
our comments are. You can hear from the applicant. You can tell
me that you don't want to hear a presentation at all. It is really
up to you.
Welton: I don't think a lengthy presentation is really needed.
A lot of the faces in the audience are familiar.
23
PZM4.5.88
Harvey: I think that what we will do is just have Gene Aubrey the
architect highlight the major changes that have occurred since in
reference to the approved plan and since the August when we started
this process and with working with Planning.
Aubrey: Just a brief introduction. When we started the project
Hadid called us in to do the project. We went to Washington and
we looked at the approved PUD submission at that time and we were
asked to come up with a re-design of the facade. In doing that we
came up with a facade which was shown here in Aspen and then we
took it over to the Planning and Zoning staff and got some very
quick comments back about that. It was a rather regal looking
building. Rather formal looking building. It had some very
straight horizontal lines. Especially along Mill street and
Monarch streets and we were asked to review that. And the staff
made some very constructive recommendations.
Those recommendations primarily were in the form of the variations
in the heights of the roof lines because we had very strong
horizontal lines along the roof edge. The varying roof heights we
talked about the break up of the facade along all of the
elevations. And we talked about the compatibility of the
architecture as it relates to the Aspen scene.
So we did scheme one. That was reviewed. We went back and over
a period of since August we made a number of revisions--quite a
number of revisions in that scheme. A few of those involved
additional setbacks, variations in heights and primarily and
variations in window types. We discussed actual styles of
architecture where the discussion of victorian architecture came
up. We probably took it to quite an extreme. And again what
happened is we started out with Mr. Hadid as a client and as we go
through and you work with any City as I have worked with maybe 30
different cities in this same kind of atmosphere, really the city
becomes the client in a way along with the other client.
So in responding to that in the window details, balcony details
and all of those kind of things we did scheme #2 and in reviewing
scheme #2 and presenting that to you again some very good
suggestions came back. Again those had to do with a lot of the
details of the building but primarily the mass of the building,
the break up of the building, how we could possibly move it on the
site and adjust those areas.
And one of the big issues was the roof. So we completely re-
designed the project. We went back and came back to you which we
did last week and we started in that presentation--I would like to
start this evening with the plans. One of the things that was a
prime importance and the re-design from the very beginning was the
heights and the massing of what you see.
24
PZM4.5.88
The red line indicates the previous approved submission. This is
the elevation that we presented last week which involves our roof
line starting at this elevation and we can then slope that roof up
at 45 degrees instead of a mansard roof with a 42ft elevation
falling at mid point of that roof and then the thing that really
concerned us of course and we have always been at the back of our
mind was the previous height and so we felt that we were
considerably below that which you can see in that diagram.
I would also like to point out on Dean street on the previous
submission--the previous approved submission--is that the rooms
that were indicated on this level which are set back, those were
actually brought out and we were able to drop this height at the
beginning of the roof height line, one full floor because the
previous submission was building mass out on Dean street.
Harvey: On page 5 of Alan's memo he states that the code requires
that a building height is measured to the top of a mansard roof.
Welton, I was sitting in that chair in the Spring of '85 when this
came up. I would like to read into the record the minutes from the
April 30th Planning & Zoning commission meeting.
It states that Harvey asked Richman if the building height was
taken care of at the conceptual level. Richman replied Yes and
there was agreement to the fact that the Mansard roof and the whole
question of how you measure a mansard roof was entirely irrelevant.
Planning & Zoning and Council said height limits at the conceptual
level can verify that they are complied with at preliminary and
final level. Height is not an issue to be discussed at this
meeting.
That comment from Alan was in response to a citizen who dug out
this mansard roof code section and brought it to the attention of
the Commission during the preliminary approval. And that was his
response. Basically what happened was the Larry Yaw design had
looked like a sloped roof but it was flat on the top so it was
really a mansard roof. Everyone was saying 42ft to the midpoint.
Then this issue came up that was put to bed then. And I hope I
can put it to bed again.
Richman: At some point I would like a chance to clarify. The
whole approach we are taking here is quite a bit out of order.
The points that you are raising about appropriateness of the roof
are something that the Commission really shouldn't be reaching
until after they have re-scored the application. What I thought
we were heading towards here was looking at specifically a re-
scoring of the application,. The Commission needs to reach a
fundamental threshold of are they satisfied with the amendment and
if they are satisfied from a scoring perspective then we ought to
25
PZM4.5.88
be discussing is the project appropriate. It is going to be real
hard if we are going to get into a debate here on points like that.
Obviously the roof form that we were talking about in 1985 doesn't
resemble this roof form. It is quite a bit different. The mansard
is set quite a ways back from the facade unlike it does right now.
And we can get into the debate at some point when it is
appropriate.
Aubrey: In any case what was important to us in the re-design of
the facades of this building was the appropriateness to the city
of Aspen. In the previous designs which we had submitted and which
we worked with the staff on and comments were made and we felt
again that they were very constructive the elimination of all of
what you might call gargoyles or decoration, we went back and
lowered the details and I might point out at the last presentation
it was assumed that we were representing this building as a smaller
building.
This is really just any architect always does this. It is a detail
of the building indicating a portion of that building so that you
can simply see the details. We are not trying to say the building
is 2ft tall or--all architects know this.
What this drawing is really indicating is the dormer system at the
top that enables Ritz-Carlton to have real rooms instead as in the
previous submission. They had rooms that had no windows on the top
floor and they had sky lights which are kind of hard to rent.
This also indicates the balcony details which are the metal painted
hand rail applied to the building that has slats in the floor to
help eliminate the possible build-up of snow. They only protrude
about 14in outside of the building. It is not a 6ft deep balcony
or anything like that.
So again along Dean Street you see the opening--the entrance to
the building as you come in off of Dean street and the openings
along the face of Dean st. to emphasize the importance of the Dean
st entrance which is a very important image thing in the Ritz-
Carlton operation.
Then the issue of the corner. That was a large discussion point
a meeting or 2 ago. And what we went back to is to restudy that
corner again emphasizing on a lower scale a lower residential scale
which is what we are attempting to do with this hotel where it is
almost reads as a series of smaller residences as you go around the
property edge.
Another question that was brought up last week in the presentation
and that was could we compare this hotel with another historic
26
PZM4.5.88
building. The north elevation looking to the mountain, that is
what you see on Dean street. The Hotel Jerome looking north to the
mountain--I might point out that the roof line again we really are
trying to get this going down into a scale where it looks
residential where the roof line starts at the right height. The
dormer windows which you can see right out of that window where you
see the roof line starting down into the dormer to give the
illusion of a lower building.
The Jerome roof which this is a straight vertical wall is right
there. There is no slope to that wall. So you are reading really
this wall compared to the wall.
The other point that was brought out last week (rattling of maps)
Wagner Park across from Durante Street. If I stand in Wagner Park
across from Durant Street across from the Mountain Chalet, you
don't see the hotel for starters. But you do see, and this is the
line you see a mountain. Obviously if you stand in Wagner Park
across on Durant Street in the open space, you would see the hotel.
I would like to point out in the previous approved submittal this
roof was built--the open space was built out to there. So that we
have drastically reduced the mass of the building on Dean Street.
So that is in response to the questions of last week.
As you come along Mill Street you can enter into the retail through
a little vest pocket park along the edge. Again these are broken
up and divided into individual units. As you walk along it was
very important in some of the comments that we really create a very
nice pedestrian edge along that street which we have done. In a
sense it is a linear park that goes all the way along that edge as
well as on Monarch Street.
When we first began the design process the first thing we did and
we saw it could be changed and improved upon was the moving back
of the original submittal off of Dean Street which we have done
some 8ft off--again more open space to create a much more wonderful
entry into the hotel.
In the open space on these edges what we did the original submittal
had this all the way up to the property line which left a grand
total of about 15ft here. Where we are now we have been able to
pull this whole mass of the building down 6ft. We have been able
to move it back 2ft by jogging the hall corridor inside which means
that if you are standing at a point here looking back you have in
effect that whole building slip past giving the illusion of a much
smaller building which is in response to the comments from the
Board two meetings ago.
27
PZM4.5.88
We also did that on this side of the building by moving it in. It
reduced the size of that courtyard. I would like to point out in
the open space in the previous submittal when you were standing in
that courtyard in the schematic drawings of the previous submission
and you looked at that wall, there was literally an 8 story
building there. And in this submittal there is a 4 story building
there. So I think we have a much more wonderful kind of space
which now opens it out. There is a stairway that comes up. There
is a fountain and there is a really wonderful garden that opens
onto Monarch Street. The entire edge of Monarch Street which the
building is now some 18ft at that point off the edge. The parking
lane still stays so we have a linear park which runs along the edge
of Monarch Street. We have the parking park which we enter into
the retail area at that point where we break the facade with these
2 divisions. We divided it into 3 distinct sections. Actually 4
because now this one comes out past that and this is a stair tower
in that location.
Harvey: Can we respond to any questions from the Commission
regarding architecture, site design before we make a presentation
on the GMP?
Someone asked about building height.
Harvey: We maintain measurements according to the way it was
interpreted before.
Mari: Is that the mid point of the roof or is that the peak of
the roof?
Richman: 52 is a measure right to the peaks. Any time I use a 52
or 56 I am talking right to the--not to--the mid point is what they
have been showing you all along is that line and it is very
accurate.
white: I guess this is the time to mention a little about
architectural design. My feeling about the hotel is that it is a
lot better and it is getting a lot better. I still have to say
that I would love to see some separate buildings and a separate
building that could be locked off from (much noise) high season
which might solve employee situation a little bit too. And I am
concerned that the open space is not as much in the benefit to the
public as it should be.
The scale of it I keep on trying to get in my mind. And when I
was up on the Gondola today, I was riding up there with my wife
and we rode up twice just to get a sense of what it was. She asked
me how big it was on each side and I am going by some numbers--we
could be a little bit off--the length on each side and I thought
about it being 292 rooms about 3 times the size of the Jerome. And
28
PZM4.5.88
going up on the Gondola you look at the Jerome in town and it
stands right out as you go up and it looks pretty big and you look
at something 3 times that size and I just really am still having
a hard time with it.
My comment is that it is still too big, too massive. Mill, Monarch
and Dean are still 300 to 400 plus feet facades and that is too
much for me.
Peyton: I do think that the architect has responded very
positively to the criticisms that were made about the lack of
relating to the west of the Rockies but my main problem is still
that on the original approved hotel back in '84 there was a big
plaza in front of the entrance which gave it a gracious look. Now
we are looking at what was to be a wing of that hotel which was
approved in total in '84. And now we are looking at an amendment
and this is the hotel.
And I am just very much bothered by the fact that you have a 4
story wall around the perimeter of the property with the open space
only available to the patrons of the hotel and there is no grand
open feeling on the exterior of the hotel.
Harvey: Well, if I may--we have opened the
within very minor variations of the same
approved on that site. No change has been
plan.
open space. We are
footprint that was
made to the approved
Peyton: Except that the main entrance, the main interest of the
hotel is now on Dean street where before it was--well, it was still
on Dean street but it was looking at a huge plaza in front of it
and now there is none.
Harvey: Well, for the east wing.
Peyton: Right.
Harvey: That plan hasn't changed.
Welton: Mari, Roger has a copy of the application right here and
there was a building at that other corner or at the end of the half
block with an ice skating rink in the middle.
Peyton: Yea. That is what I am talking about. All of this--
Harvey: That plan has not been changed at all.
Welton: You are looking at the wrong spot.
29
PZM4.5.88
Peyton: What I am saying is this was the entrance to the hotel.
Now the entrance to the hotel--
Harvey: That is the second phase to the hotel. There had to be
an entrance to the first phase.
Peyton:
whether
I think
I am just saying that for the largest hotel in
we are--you know, now we are looking at just part of
the entrance should be grander than this.
Aspen
this.
Sarpa: Well, we kept the park. What you are discussing is the
grandeur that that park created. It is still there and we have
gone beyond. Because of the comments that opened it up more we
have put in a temporary park and we opened up the interior from
the Monarch street side. So we have tried to #1 preserve the
grandeur that you are talking about. That is a required. We had
to keep that. That park is still there. Coming into that hotel
you will be looking across the park, pedestrians can walk across
that park, walk into the main pedestrian access so it is going to
be very open, very inviting and then to open up the interior and
that is a little larger picture of that--then the roof plan you
can see how in response to the fact that OK and even though we have
got more open space, if you look at all that green space that was
required under the existing approval we added to that existing
space and the new design increased the entire open space and than
we have opened up the interior open space on Monarch Street. So
we think we have been responsive to all your concerns in detail.
Richman: John, could I ask-is that open space in front of the
Aspen Grande committed to as permanent open space or is there--
Sarpa: It is a temporary park.
Richman: I am just trying to clarify that. In the previous
proposal the temporary park was Phase I in association with this
hotel and then in Phase II two portions along here and along there
became chalets and this became what was called the I am
we are told that we don't know what Phase II is going to look like
now. At lease we had some sense that at some point in the future
when we looked at the whole PUD in 1983 and
'85, there were 2 hotels--the hotels were going to be operated in
some fashion with some form of open space. We don't really know
what Phase II is going to be.
Harvey: Phase II is as approved unless it is amended.
(much laughter here)
Richman: We don't know what Phase II is going to be anymore.
30
PZM4.5.88
Harvey: It is like everything else. You know exactly what you
have there. You have the absolute right to insist on it.
Richman: I understand.
entrance we really don't
be in the future.
It is just if that's part of the grand
know what the grand entrance is going to
We are trying to look at the site in a unified planning unit
development and yet we really have trouble doing that because we
are not planning the site in a unified manner right now. We are
planning it in pieces. And, Mari, to be fair that is something we
did to ourselves when we broke out the two phases. That is not
something that they are asking us to do now. That is something we
did back in a previous approval.
Peyton: For the what will be the largest hotel in our community
and probably the big landmark of Aspen, I feel like we can't count
on having that kind of entrance that we could count on when we were
approving prior presentation.
Welton: It is 5 minutes to 7. We are going to end the meeting at
7:30. Do you think--
Richman: Then we are not going to do the scoring tonight.
Jasmine: Yes we are.
Harvey: I would like to make a little presentation unless you guys
score the
Richman: I have to give them some advice before they can score.
Peyton: Just for the public who have taken the trouble to come
here I would like to know whether you want to hear from the public
or not.
Richman: GMP scoring is public hearing. It is the public hearing
in this process.
Welton: So we will be here until 9:00 so let's just gear for that.
Richman: OK. The code basically charges you with doing 2 things
here tonight. And I want everybody to understand this first of
all quite clearly. Because the applicant is requesting changes in
a number of areas, architecture, employee housing being the
principle ones, those automatically require that rescoring be done.
The rescoring has 2 basic requirements that we have to take the
application through. #1, you have to determine in your rescoring
if the application would continue to meet the minimum competitive
thresholds both the lodge aspect and the residential aspect.
31
PZM4.5.88
You also at the same time have to determine if there is a change
in the score and the score were to go down, would that mean that
the application might fall behind some application that it scored
ahead of before. In other words does that put the allotment in
any kind of question.
The Planning Office recommended re-scoring does none of those
things. The Planning Office recommended rescoring would result in
a confirmation of the allotment.
Once you make the determination of what your rescore is it will
become a lot clearer to us what the second step in the process is
which is the determination of appropriateness. If you find
problems in certain areas you may want to attach conditions in
those areas. But the code specifically charges you with making
comments to council on the appropriateness and that is why the
comment to Parry that I did earlier. All of the much broader
comments that we have made in the memorandum refer to those
questions of appropriateness.
If the Commission scores this project as high or higher than in
previous scoring it will be apparent you find the current design
appropriate and you won't be interested in looking at comments on
inappropriateness. If you should score it lower then that tells
us where to look at in terms of where the inappropriateness may
be.
That is point #1. Point #2 in all of the scorings that we have
done of the Aspen Mountain PUD we have scored the entire project.
So when we are looking at the Lodge component we are looking at
the entire PUD. When we are looking at the entire residential
component we are looking at the entire PUD. That was done as a
conscious decision by the P&Z. And it was done because there is
no way to separate out which sewer pipes go to residential vs which
sewer pipes go to the commercial. There is no way to differentiate
the architecture for the residential portion vs. the Lodge portion.
They are all a unity. And you need to continue to look at the
project as a unity.
I have also in rescoring and I believe this is consistent with the
code, not tried to look at the amendment aspect. I haven't tried
to say how is this project different from where it was in 1985.
How is it different from where it was in 1983. I have tried to
look at how is this project as it is proposed compare to the
criteria of the code. I think that is what the code directs you
to do. It is to look at the architecture and determine if it meets
the criteria. It is to look at the water sewer services--any of
those aspects and compare them to the criteria of the code, not to
get into a better/worse kind of a comparison which would be
32
PZM4.5.88
extremely subjective and would hinder your scoring.
project to the criteria.
The third thing, the third general point I would like to make is
that this proj ect has been scored now twice before--the Lodge
portion and the residential once before. There was a scoring in
1983 when the application originally came in. That score met the
threshold but you had a lot of problems with the project. Council
had a lot of problems with the project. The result of all of those
problems was a lot of redesign, particularly in the conceptual
phase and then some other redesign and preliminary phase of the
project.
Compare the
For the purposes of comparison the 1983 score really bares a
relationship anymore. The 1983 score is not the project that is
the approved PUD. The approved PUD is the 1985 score. The 1985
score is a considerably higher score because at the end of the
entire PUD process you were quite satisfied with the project that
you were approving ie the Roberts plan.
with those as my generic comments I am going to very briefly touch
on the scoring. We have prepared these graphics just to try and
help everybody to focus on the compared scores. The Commission has
all of this information and the applicant in the packet but the
public doesn't. It just provides an opportunity for everybody to
be working at the same basic criteria at the same time.
There are several areas that we do score on and one is services,
and other is quality of design and another is amenities and a 4th
is employee housing. What I have provided here is a comparison of
#1, the score P&Z granted to the original project. #2, the score
that the P&Z granted to the amended project. #3, the Planning
Office current recommendation. Obviously the empty one will be
filled in tonight based on Commission's rescoring.
Summarizing the first area which is services. services have scored
consistently in all 3 sets of applications. We have not had
significant changes in services from one application to another.
Some of the changes that you see there represent changes in people
that actually do the scoring and in ways of interpreting the actual
score. The only area where we have made any change from the prior
P&Z score in 1985 is an increase in the area of drainage. The
reason for that increase is that the applicant has addressed
drainage in our opinion in a slightly more positive way. 1.5 is
the score just below the 2. The 2 is improvement for the
community. We felt the fact that the applicant is not only
handling the on site drainage but is also proposing
apprehensive Aspen Mountain drainage study is a benefit to the
community.
33
PZM4.5.88
We don't have all of the commitments that we might like in terms
of the applicant saying "And here is how we will handle the
problem. Here is a percentage of the problem that we are willing
to handle". Those kinds of things. If the commitment went to that
level this would certainly be a 2 score. But I think it is an
improvement and services in general are an improvement.
Secondly in the area where obviously we have had the more
significant comments which has been in the area of design. As I
say the second general area is the quality of design which are
these 3 categories and the 2 categories there. And obviously this
the area where the Planning Office is recommending a lower score
than was granted by the P&Z in the prior review. The prior review
the Planning Commission found the architecture basically standard.
The site design (coughing) 9 points is nearly the exceptional
score. The energy was standard score. The parking was slightly
below standard and the visual impact was standard, 6 out of 9.
(mumble) 9.
Our reasons for being concerned about the architecture and the
visual impact in particular are #1 our concerns with the mass and
scale of the building. We saw quite a bit of presentation last
and as well this week about the style of the building. We are not
concerned about the style of the building. Qui te a bit of
improvement has been made towards bringing this project towards
compatibility style-wise with the rest of the community. However
in terms of scale, we have grave concerns about the scale of the
Mill Street facade in particular. We would concur with those who
have commented tonight about the need to break the building into
smaller pieces. We would point out to you that that was a
condition of the prior conceptual approval. We think it is
something that is appropriate for the site and we continue to
believe that the architectural design which requires us to look at
scale and size requires a building that is compatible in terms of
scale.
We are also concerned about that 42ft to the mid point issue. And
the issue there for me is that 42ft to the mid point of the roof
is not a variation that I think was granted lightly by the
community. The code would require 28ft to the mid point of the
roof in the L-1 and the L-2 zone. So 42ft to the mid point is
quite a significant variation. It seems to me from all of my
participation in the process that that was based on specific roof
form. That is steeply pitched roof form. While this roof form
certainly has more pitch than did the proposal that we saw early
on in the process it is still what I and our architectural
consultant would call mansard. For a mansard roof we do review
the project in terms of looking at the height to the top of the
roof and not to the mid point.
34
PZM4.5.88
In terms of actual heights we have mentioned height goes up as high
as 52 and 56 feet to the top of the roof.
site design: I will keep my comments fairly brief although we have
recommended a reduction and we are continuing to recommend what is
a standard score. Now you have asked why we have recommended a
reduction when as the applicant said the open space is in the same
general location as it was before. In a lot of areas it is in fact
more extensive than it was before.
Quite frankly as I said early on in our presentation we have
compared the project to the criteria. And based on our review of
the open space, it is impossible for us to judge the open space on
this site as exceptional when the open space on the hotel site is
all internal to the hotel site. We quite frankly don't compare our
score to the 3 given in 1985 and question why do we give it 3 in
1985? I am looking at why is the open space appropriate or
inappropriate at this point in time and trying to hear what people
in the community are saying in terms of open space.
We tend to agree that a larger pedestrian plaza in the front of
the building would seem appropriate at this point in time. I would
also suggest that there seemed to be a lot of areas of site
planning when you take a look at the project as I must--when you
take a look at the project fresh and try and compare this design
for Phases I and II against the criteria there are a number of
areas where I would have to question the way the amendment has
proceeded.
Energy Conservation: We have reduced the score slightly. In the
application it reads that the roof insulation has been reduced
somewhat. The orientation of rooms is also not quite as good
towards passive solar as before therefore we had to reduce the
standard score. We don't have a problem with in terms of visual
impact, I will just mention one more time our concern is a scale
question. Our concern is the scale of the facade on Mill street.
We don't believe the indentations into the building or extensions
from the building are ways of dealing with visual impact. We think
that the visual impact was dealt with appropriately in the earlier
design by breaking the building into several pieces.
I did a quick comparison in looking at the project just to try and
understand how the massing could change so much in the various
proposals. I just want to read some numbers to you that may help
you to understand some of our concerns. In the PUD agreement we
gave an approval that said that the west site which is the site
that we are looking at for the Ritz could have not more than 300
rooms. The east site could have not more than 190 rooms and the
35
PZM4.5.88
total PUD could have not more than 447. In other words we looked
at the 2 sites and gave flexibility for quit a few more rooms than
actually ended up on the site.
The approved design--the Roberts Plan--certainly fit within the
not more than 300. No only 285 on the west site and 162 on the
east site for a total of 447 rooms. However, of the 285 rooms 36
of those were in the building that we called a replacement for the
Blue Spruce. Now in the course of the process that we have been
going through in the last month the applicant first presented
initially the removal of all of the lodge rooms from that Blue
Spruce site and their moving into the hotel itself and then
actually the removal of the Blue Spruce building.
What we have done and I think we all did it kind of unconsciously-
-I know I didn't consciously think about it--what we have end up
doing is we have concentrated all of the approved rooms on the west
side of the site into the Ritz-Carlton. And it is no wonder to me
that people are wondering about why the scale doesn't seem to fit
with Aspen.
We don't have separate buildings anymore. What we have got is 292
rooms in the west wing in the Ritz-Carlton as opposed to an
approval that I believe was 249--just he lodge rooms. I am not
counting the (coughing) And that seems to me to have some bearing
on the size of this project and being out of scale. I wonder if
we required there to be 190 units on the east side on the
continental side and allow 257 on this side if that might not help
with the scale. But that is something that maybe to talk about in
the appropriateness issues.
In terms of amenities I don'[t have a lot of comments for you.
The conference center and the recreation facilities continue to be
outstanding in our opinion. We didn't change the ratings. We feel
that we are required to reduce the rating in the dining area
because it talks about availability or improvements to dining.
There is one less dining facility on the site and we do feel that
it is necessary to reduce the score although I certainly would not
consider the loss of a restaurant to be a problem. In fact it is
probably a benefit to the community.
?: You didn't want to compare before. Now you are comparing.
Richman: The last thing if you want me to just compare 204 seats
to a hotel with 292 rooms I will have to go back to my books. I
will pull it out in comparison. I think we will find that the
number of seats adequate. I am not in any way, John, stating that
it is an inadequate number of seats. The question is is it
exceptional for a 292 room hotel.
36
PZM4.5.88
The last point is employee housing. Commitments to how 60%, those
points don I t change. Basically our score is lower. It is
recommended at 58.2. I would point out to you that there is an
error in the score sheet. It says that the 60% threshold is 54
points. That is incorrect. That had something to do with the
points (mumble) The 60% (more mumble) so this is more
above the threshold than I had been pointing out to you and I am
sorry for that error.
51 is the required threshold. Obviously any of these scores are
well above the threshold and as I mentioned to you the issue of
threshold here really is not a question at all. Some of the areas
where we suggested ---
Welton: In the Planning Office's evaluation in jeopardy of making
the project not reach the threshold. You only need to apply for
points.
Harvey: Well, let me say what I have to say. Alan has thrown me
an extreme curve ball. His memo starts out and talks about your
requirement to determine the appropriateness of this project vs
the commitments previously made by the applicant. Now he is saying
you can't compare what was approved with what we are doing. Your
task is to determine the appropriateness of this amendment vs the
approved plan.
You are looking at "Shall we allow this applicant to amend this
approved plan or shall we stick with he approved plan". That is
exactly what you are scoring here. That is exactly what you are
scoring. Alan points out that the project shouldn't be amended so
that it erodes any of the commitments previously made. We have not
done that. I think that the level of commitment remains the same
in those categories that are unchanged and is improved in every
other category.
More of the open space is externalized to the public. The height
is substantially reduced. I feel that while we have used a
different vocabulary in dealing with breakup of mass, we have
effectively done it and I think we have created a building that is
much more in keeping with really important buildings in this
community. It is of a scale which is substantially lower than the
Hotel Jerome when it is relative to its land site. A battle ship
looks different on the ocean than it does in your swimming pool.
You have got to compare scale as it relates to what is the floor
area ratio.
The Jerome visible floor area ratio is about 2.8. Ours is about
1.7. You have got to look at it relative to the land mass. Alan
said that you have to score it according to the criteria. Even
though one less restaurant in Aspen may be a major community
37
PZM4.5.88
benefit, Alan says you can't score it that way because it is not
of the amenity level.
At our first meeting we talked about some things regarding the
architectural design and that was that--and Alan brought this up
and he recommended this and said "You know, you can't really
consider architectural design as considering the compatibility of
the proposed building with the existing neighborhood developments".
And we kind of decided in this group that we are going to look at
this in terms of community. We really didn't want to emulate the
Fifth Avenue or the North of Nell or some of the other buildings
up there.
Now the--he has scored this substantially lower in the
architecture. We want to talk about the compatibility with the
community, the Aspen architecture, the Mountain architecture. I
have talked about the scale regarding that. I think what I want
you guys to look at is is this a community benefit? Is a world
class conference hotel that supports the existing Aspen community
a benefit to the community on a site--on a parcel of land that is
an adequate size to hold it that is not going to impact you the
way the Hotel Jerome or other buildings do.
I ask you guys how many times do you go past that site in the
normal course of events? You are going to go to this hotel and
that is when you are going to see it. If we didn't have a Gondola
you could ride facing backwards in, you would never even notice it.
I think you have to keep that in mind when they talk about these
things.
In terms of the site design I just want to read what the scoring
criteria is. Alan says he scored according to this. Then listen
to it. "considering the quality and character of the proposed or
the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas.
The extent of undergrounding of utilities. And the provision of
pedestrian amenities such paths and benches. To enhance the design
of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development."
Your scoring category on site design requires you to give points
considering the safety and privacy of the users of the development.
This issue, and I agree it is an issue, but if you guys are going
to look at the categories, dammit, look at the categories. And it
of course not open space is internalized. It benefits the hotel
guests to a greater degree than it does the public. That is the
way it is supposed to be. It is the way a world class hotel
operates.
Peyton: I just don't think--
38
PZM4.5.88
Harvey: We are talking about the premier hotel. One that has a
grand design and image. It has to have this grand design and image
for the impact that this community needs. The scoring that we want
that I want you to evaluate is the appropriateness of the changes
in light of the approval of record. And it has got to be in terms
of that approval as it exists.
We need from you a clear message to City Council that this
amendment is a substantive improvement over what was approved. We
need you to say to City Council that this is an improvement. If
you don't feel that way we are going to go back to the approved
plan and we can save everybody a lot of time. If you do feel that
way in the scoring I hope you will reflect that so that you can say
to Council "Look this is a greater benefit to this community than
what we have as the approved plan". Thank you.
Welton: Over the last month we have had 4 meetings of which I
would say at least half of the 12 hours that we were in those
meetings has been devoted to public comment. So we have heard a
lot from a lot of different people in the community. I will open
the public hearing for GMP discussion by the public. Please limit
your discussion to less than 3 minutes.
Jim Breasted: I have great sympathy for the applicant. (something
about credibility and much laughter) I just want to read and enter
into the record Dr. Whitcomb's letter. "I am writing this letter
because I felt I had to say something about why is the
greatest little City in the World. As one analysis the rhythm and
the cycle of Aspen over the years it is pretty much remains as it
has always been. There is something about the energy of the area
that creates a heartbeat of energy in the winter and Summer and the
need for everybody to be doing something else in the Spring and
Fall.
Traditionally everybody goes like crazy in the wintertime and sort
of collapses in the Spring. In the early days you could shoot a
rifle down Main Street and never hit anybody. Obviously things are
not quite the same. But it certainly is not the most attractive
place in the world in the off season. Particularly in the Spring
time. Everybody seems to head for Mexico or somewhere else and
regroup their energy.
So where is my point? It seems as though we are tying to create
an impossible situation to bigger and bigger hotels. Hotels are
only successful, and I am not a hotel manager, if you can fill the
hotel beds. You have to have people around to fill the beds. It
seems that you can't fill any beds once the ski season is closed.
All you have to do is ask anyone around who has been here for any
period of time. (mumble) So how is creating bigger and better
39
PZM4.5.88
hotels going to work? Creating a hotel that has a base that is
bigger than a football field and 5 stories high seems to be an
impossible dream to me. They also went crazy when the built the
North of Nell building. Now we are talking about building
something even bigger.
It seems that it is going to take a helicopter to be able to see
our mountain. Sort of like putting one of the great pyramids in
downtown Pueblo. I think John McBride pointed out very
appropriately that as the scale of things and a particular scenario
it really matter in our area. This is a small mountain town with
its own special feeling and identity. More is not better in an
area that only works the way it works.
We can make things happen that aren't going to happen. It seems
that hotels are lucky if they can be 70 to 80% filled up most of
the time. Does this mean energy people in our town will be unable
to accept it? Sort of like putting 5 pounds of groceries in a 2
pound bag. I am just not sure how much overload in a place we all
love the best is going to be tolerated.
A reasonable hotel seems to be fine. The hotel of 290 and more
rooms seems highly unreasonable and out of context with me. It
just doesn't make sense to me with all the sacrifices that the
people in our valley have made over the years to comply with the
zoning and all of the things that have kept our place special could
watch this disappear.
It doesn't make sense to allow a concept that just doesn't fit the
natural scheme of things. I was hoping Aspen would continue to
keep things in scale and in perspective allowing for who we are and
where we fit in the universal scheme of things.
Hoping the people who call the shots are looking down the road and
analyzing the impact their decision will make on our community.
Bigger is not better. H. G. Whitcomb, Jr. MDS.
I have a great deal of sympathy, I repeat for the applicant. I
think what has happened is that the Town (someone else talking)
has to they can stop it themself. I think there has been a real
change in their perspective and it has been a long education
process. And I think there is a great deal of feeling against the
impact of the hotel not having a hotel here. The impact, this size
of it and the scale.
(applause)
Harry?: I want to start by just a little bit of nit picking.
Comparing the front of this building to the back side of the Hotel
Jerome was not a very significant comparison I believe because
40
PZM4.5.88
obviously that isn't the side of the Jerome that addresses the
town.
The back-Galena drops off considerably in the back and it is quite
a bit larger size impact than the front. The front is set back
significantly from the street and in fact I think maybe the
comparison will turn out to be a fortunate one because you have
got a fairly accurate impact of what the north facing building
facade the side that we are talking about by walking to the back
side of the Jerome and facing the mountain that you could get a
good feel and you saw exactly how the 2 buildings compare.
The next I have been in the position before. The roof
height business. When we had a similar situation at the Sardy House
the dormers projecting from the roof--the dormers could only occupy
approximately 50% of the roof that they were projecting from in
order to have the roof qualify as a sloping roof. In that case and
the case of the drawings that we saw the space between the dormer
looks like it is about 1 or 2 feet and to call that an edge of the
roof is to me pushing things quite a bit. But that I feel is all
just nitpicking.
The real issue here is the fact that we have a building that is
turning its back on the community. It seems to be just aiming the
other way. We are not a hostile community. I think perhaps where
other buildings that the Ritz Carlton has built they built them in
heavy duty hostile neighborhoods and so on. It is essential that
those hotels protect their backs from the community.
I feel that the building surrounds the open space and the open
space was not created for the hotel. The open space was created
for the community. Parry said the hotel was going to use this open
space. This is the way it was best for them. I say the open space
was created for us and it should be in a position or in a place
that, in fact, benefits the community.
I think that what is most upsetting and I feel again and I will
attempt to convey some sympathy to the --I think that what we
have got here is a process that has eroded or deluded or disturbed
or convoluted the whole situation so that we have arrived at or
resulted in a building that, in fact, is aimed in the wrong
direction. We are not taking the opportunity that we could. This
hotel could be a fantastic opportunity to enhance downtown Aspen.
I feel very strongly that it doesn't do that.
?: While I may be a relatively new resident of Aspen-I have lived
here a little more than a year, I do want to express my (mumble)
I think that in watching the latest in the provision of this
proposal I think it is a sensitive and well thought out building.
I like it. I think it is an enhancement to the Aspen community.
4l
PZM4.5.88
I think that the Hadid Aspen Holdings Group has spent an
exceptional amount of time trying to be sensitive to the people of
the community and the environment and I want to commend them for
their professionalism in trying to handle and be sensitive to the
communi ty. That is my personal opinion. I sometimes get an
impression that the community is seeking to seeing how much they
can be critical instead of trying to see some goodness. If you are
the first to say it is attractive that maybe you will be
criticized. That is the impression I get from the community and
I just wanted to stand up and say I think they have been sensitive
and I think this would be a welcome--I listened to the people at
ACIC dinner when Mohamid spoke and they received him well and a lot
of their concerns and their fears seemed to be put to rest in terms
(mumble) Thank you.
Augie Reno, architect: I would like to stand a little bit on the
comparison of the Hotel Jerome renovation that was pointed out by
the architect. What I think is obvious to me is that there are
not one elevation that compares with the Hotel Jerome but there
are 3 elevations. So that virtually when a pedestrian is looking
upon that building you will have 3 gigantic walls that would be
presented from the street side.
R.J. Gallager: I would like to read a letter that was written by
Phister, an Aspen resident who couldn't be here this evening.
"In Aspen everything is after the fact. A hotel the size of that
as approved by the city Council. Now you have a developer who will
give you a choice. Roberts design or a scaled down vastly improved
designed plan by Hadid. Everyone in town is now trying to change
size and design according to each persons ideas.
Hotels don't get built that way. Our community should be doing
everything in our power to help get this hotel built. We are more
than lucky to have someone that will do this project. Let's look
at Aspen's place and compare to the ski world. We are in dreadful
shape as to first class hotel rooms. Most of our rooms are 20 to
30 years old and still at first class rates. We have the Hotel
Jerome, The Hotel Lenado and The Sardy House--132 luxury rooms.
Think about it. The ski business makes this community run.
without it we are dead. We need quality rooms for a ski season.
If a new hotel can fill in the off season to some extent we all
gain also.
John Sarpa: Last I was horrified to read int he paper that there
was a possibility that employee housing was going to be built in
a park area. And I hope as your are going through this process
that you are not going to just focus on the hotel perse but you
are going to think about the employee housing and where it is going
to be and it is not going to be in a public lands and areas where
people may have a problem with it.
42
PZM4.5.88
Graeme: (reading) Myself and many other members of the community
would like the Planning Dept to recognize denial of the Ritz
Carlton Hotel based on scale and size. The program and size of the
project were originally conceived against protest of many some
years ago under an economic finding very different from that of
today.
When Rose Murphy began the project has been further muddled by
changes in ownership and hotel management and by artificial
deadlines and hurried compromise decisions. After probably
hundreds of meetings the proposal remains a highly controversial
mishmash of rushed decisions. The planning mechanisms of the City
of Aspen have not been able to guide the developer toward a
solution acceptable to the community. And this alone should make
it obvious that this project is ill conceived and inappropriate
for this City.
Though a project may possibly look good from the developer's point
of view it turns its back on Aspen and its needs. While certainly
not to blame for our problems the building of this hotel would
definitely aggravate them. I speak of crowding on Hwy 82 at the
airport and on Aspen Mountain. I think of parking, employee
housing on the scale of our architecture.
The building offers very little open space to the community and
indeed represents a large block in the center of town which the
people of Aspen will have to detour around. It totally ignores
the potential of a building on this site to forge a much desired
length between the center of town and the ski mountain.
Another potential problem is that of precedence. If any other
developer should procure a large piece of Aspen real estate they
will certainly push for development on a similar scale. The Aspen
community has grown over the last hundred years at a rate and on
a scale that has produced our unique city best. This project
ignores our historical development and future growth on this scale
will very quickly destroy the charm of Aspen.
Although developers might have expectations about their development
rights the effects on the City of Aspen remain far more important.
I therefore hope that your will recommend denial of this project
so that the proper priorities can be identified and the project
should be planned in such a manner that is a benefit to and an
attribute of our city. Thank you.
Bill Lipsie: My only comment has to do with my reaction of what
other people's comments are regarding the mass of this project.
And I would suggest that it is really hard to tell or to judge what
the mass is because what we are looking at is 2 dimensional
43
PZM4.5.88
drawings basically. And how many of you would buy a car from a
drawing? How many of you would even buy a house from just a
drawing? You kind of want a little more than that. You need to
see the mass of the building. A town is a 3 dimensional thing.
It is not a 2 dimensional thing. In order to judge mass you need
to see it in a 3 dimensional format. I would think in a project
this big that the amount of money that it would take to produce a
model showing the mass of this project in the context of its
location may be 3 or 4 blocks around it all the way around up the
mountain, down the mountain on into the park and sideways will go
a long way in helping people really understand what they are
getting. I would push for a model before the final approvals are
made and as soon as possible.
(much applause)
Maybe it would look small in a setting like that. Maybe it would
look big. Maybe it would look just right.
Don Erikman: Most of my comments would be similar to those of Bill
and Harry and have to do with the fact that the hotel project
(mumble) very closely and enclose all of the open space in the
center for that of the hotel guests and is no benefit to the city.
There is another comment to make and that is that I appreciate that
the drawings are quite lovely which is--I like the building. I
like it a lot better. Maybe this is what Walter Paepke wanted all
along. Because what you have here should be for lots of
people in Aspen. It is a recreation of an Ivy League. And what you
see outside is pure and collegiate gothic. And Aspen appeals I for
one would like to see any historical precedence in Colorado.
steve Crockett: I just have lived here for quite a while and I
have been getting a lot of ink on this stuff lately. And a lot of
my friends have called me and asked me to start attending this
stuff and to keep up the good work, in their words, that I am
doing. And I am here just to represent their sentiment and their
feelings.
And I would like to comment a little bit on something that Parry
said which is is this project a benefit to this community. And I
really try to look at both sides of it and I really can't see where
this project benefits the community that I live in and the town of
Aspen. I moved here 20 years ago. I see more. That is all I see.
I see more. I see bigger. I see more traffic. I see more cars,
more people, more gridlock, more skier density up on the hill and
so on and so forth.
44
PZM4.5.88
And I see a visual impact that is not only in town. I always sit
in the front when I get on the car so that I look up. But you know
when I am skiing down, Parry, I usually face downhill--I am working
on that working skiing downhill. But you need to think about that
everyone of us does that when we ride up the lift and ski down and
stuff you look down and you see it disappear, man. It is going and
it is going fast. The vacant lots and so on and so forth. We have
a little and little park called Wagner Park and that is going to
be it.
And I really question when somebody comes to me and says "I want
to be a world class resort and I want to be a premier hotel. And
we need this premier world class" and so on and so forth. Well if
I had wanted world class I would have moved to Monte Carlo 20 years
ago. But I didn't. I came here because it was a small well
integrated community, alright. And this project to me really
represents the pivotal point.
I understand the Commission's task here is to recommend for
approval of this amendment but I really say "Look there is a
tremendous back-lash of resentment towards this project here. And
I think in terms of making a recommendation that we should look at-
-look let's stop. Let's hold on here for a minute and not rush
into this and not make a mistake--not be forced and be kept at the
developer's agenda.
I have no sympathy for the developer. I really don't. I like
Parry, all right. But for the most part they come into this with
their eyes open. All right? And I think that they should work to
the community's agenda, not vice versa. I really don't know where
in the book where it says we have to be the provider for everybody
and everything. I really feel like we are getting hit on by the
world as a whole out there just to give them whatever they want.
Where are they going to be 3 years from now when they have moved
on to Monte Carlo or something like that? I still live here. So
my recommendation to you would be let's just hold on here all right
and let's reassess this project and reassess where we really want
to go because that is the message that I bring to you is there is
a large, very large segment of this community out there that is not
compatible with the direction that this community is going in and
that this particular project epitomizes that.
(applause)
Ritchie Cohen: I have been here more than a few years myself. It
is interesting to hear all of these arguments and these comments.
You have got a lot of people in the room who are saying things that
are fairly negative. We have got a lot of people in this community
who are not here who are very, very supportive of the project.
45
PZM4.5.88
One of the reasons that I am here is that the function of your
Board is not to determine whether or not we need the hotel anymore,
whether it is too big, is the location right, is the architecture
right. You are here to say "Is this better than what we approved
before". These developers have had a chance to come in--some new
people (coughing) they have given the community the option of
looking at what is here saying is it better?
Here we can say "Let's change this. Let's change that". And you
have done it. You have made some good constructive criticism. I
think they have gone way beyond what would be expected under a
normal development program and they have presented you with
something that on the surface and with every bit of evidence that
we have seen is immeasurably better than what you had originally
approved--what you all approved several years ago.
I think that is what you have got to focus on right now. Now City
Council may have more latitude. At city Council I think maybe you
will find that they will be a host of people who can stand up and
defend the economic justification for it, can show the benefits
that will accrue to it as a community and talk about the fact that
Aspen--sure it is bigger--well, so is the whole world.
And if we had 10 years, if we had 20 people who lived in an area,
it is our fault. We procreated the other 20 people. So we have
to grow along with this too. We have got to work a little bit.
I think you stick to your charge. I think the Planning Office has
been a little unfair in this. I think the Planning Office has
taken some shots at this project that are uncalled for. I think
they are trying to say that we can compare this but you can't
compare that. There is more open space. I see a lot more access
into this space than you saw before in the original program. If
you don't like the park in front of the continental Hotel and you
want to keep it what it was, well, Hell, you get to look at it
again. And in a couple of years I am sure there will be some
amendments.
So I say stick to your charge. Decide whether or not this is
better. And I think if you think about this-this is much, much
better and should receive all of the endorsement you can give it.
Thank you.
Frederick?: I am an immediate adjacent resident. And I guess
first of all Ritchie is absolutely right. This is a much, much
better--I have to agree. I think it is better partly because of
the process. And I think the Planning Dept has improved the
project. I have still a couple of problems with it. And I think
it is just because the building is too high and too big.
46
PZM4.5.88
When the city Council came forth with this great mandate according
to what the middle 1 ine of the roof I am sure they weren't
suggesting that they build an 84ft high building and run the
roofing material down tot he ground. That is exactly what they
told them they could do. And, in fact, that is how the previous
design got to be 70ft high and 42ft roof line because they brought
it down.
But I don't think we have any right to ask them to make it any
smaller. The real that I felt didn't happen in the PUD was that
the PUD is charged, if you have a higher building, to do something
to compensate for it. And I just feel that if they had a little
more setback to all of the rest of the buildings like mine which
was design to a 28ft height limit, this could be a better building
for the developer and a better building for us. And my real
suggestion is that if they would give up one room on each side of
the front that would give another 16ft of open space on Monarch and
on Mill, it would be a much better project.
Parry points out that the open space is designed for the hotel
residents. Well, I point out there are many more outside rooms
than there are inside rooms. My experience in renting a hotel room
is nobody wants that room that is 8ft from a parking area. So if
they come back another 16 or 18ft one hotel room 3 or 4 stories
high they could have a landscaped park and be completely isolated
from the noise from the street.
That is my only comment is if we could help them design a better
project and I think we have, it could be even better.
Welton: I have 4 letters here' '''Dear Planning & Zoning commission:
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Ritz-
Carlton building. I know this project is proceeding under certain
assumptions from past decisions but I hope you will listen to the
strong and growing opposition to this proposed building.
I think that the Ritz-Carlton is a tremendous threat to the
character of Aspen at the very base of the skiing mountain. The
scale is totally out of proportion with the buildings in town and
therefore this building would have a major negative impact on
Aspen"
Please take a stand that will make an honest difference to the town
of Aspen. Please only allow a building that is appropriate to the
site, not what the developer feels is appropriate to his
investment.
That is from Barbara Reed.
47
PZM4.5.88
"I have been asked to correspond with you regarding the impact of
the construction of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in your community. The
impact of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel of Naples has been our community
industry and association over the past 2 years has been substantial
and overwhelmingly positive. They have greatly assisted in our
association and planning implementation of 4 local charity fund
raisers and presence a member of their management staff on our
Board of Directors and his vital participation in each of the
events.
In conclusion I would strongly recommend the addition of aa company
like the Ritz Carlton to your community not only for the economic
benefits that it provides but also for the strong input they make
to the quality of life in the area."
This from Michael McComiss, Past President of the Collier County
Restaurant Association.
I have 2 letters from 2 different Presidents of the Third street
South Area Associations.
"On behalf of the Third street South Property Owners I would like
to comment on the tremendous impact the Ritz Carlton has made in
Naples, Florida. Being a seasonal resort town many citizens were
greatly concerned with the extensive hotel and the impact it would
have on our fine City.
During the early stages of the hotel's development many doubted
the need for Naple's need for such a project. But in March 1988
I can proudly state that the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Naples is a most
outstanding and exclusive resort hotel. Not only does it provide
Naples residents with an elegant place to entertain.
This is william D. Spink, President of Third Street South
Association.
And I have one from Tony Mann, President Third street South
Merchants Association.
"As President of Third Street South Association I feel the Ritz
Carlton Hotel has put Naples, Florida on the map. For 30 years in
our resort, town people have talked season with the economy very
high in off season the economy is very low.
Since the development of the Ritz Carlton Hotel, merchants have
found that the season is busier than ever and off season is still
quite positive.
Sincerely Tony Mann, President, Third Street South Merchants
Association."
48
PZM4.5.88
Public hearing is closed.
Now we have 3 options. We can table the scoring until the next
meeting. We can go through the whole scoring procedure as we would
a normal regular GMP competition. Or as we have done in the past
and there is precedent for it, we can accept the Planning Office's
recommendation by a voice motion.
Does anybody want to--
Peyton: I move to accept Planning Office scoring.
Jim colombo seconded the motion.
Welton: I know, Parry, you said if you don't get a higher score
than John Roberts application, that means you are going to go for
John Robert's application.
Parry: I just think that we should get your scores as Planning
zoning commission and not the Planning Office's score in this
particular case. I thing it is important.
Welton: There is a motion on the floor.
Discussion?
Jim colombo seconded.
Roger: I won't support this motion.
Jasmine: Nor will I.
Herron: This project represents a lot more than that. Especially
what they have been through to get this far.
Welton: It doesn't make
Colombo: It doesn't make a difference at all.
Herron: No, it does make a difference.
Harvey: It makes a difference in the message it gives City
Council.
Richman: I would strongly suggest you score this yourself. There
is nothing in the code that provides the applicant except--(So much
noise here I could not understand Richman's comment) The new code
really does provide that because it has been a precedent. The only
way that the new code can be applied is that the applicant is
willing.
49
PZM4.S.88
Welton: We have done it in the past before on rescoring of
amendments.
Richman: Not when the applicant says that they are not
I really think it would be extremely inappropriate--
Parry: I would go for tabling it to the next meeting before I will
go for--
Colombo: I will withdraw my second if the applicant--
Richman: I am sorry. But I think you have to. I know if he were
here right now that is what he would want you to do.
Welton: OK. Let us have the score sheets.
Commission then proceeded to score this application.
Meeting was then adjourned. Time was 8:3S.
so